Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to Standing Order 18 which indicates that no member shall speak disrespectfully of another member of this place when he or she is speaking. When the hon. member for Ahuntsic was asking her question, I heard a member, who I will not identify because I do not know who said it but it was said obviously to the member herself, clearly say the words “traitor in the House”.

All members of the House, no matter how much we may disagree with another member’s agenda, are duly elected and all equal in the House. I would like to remind members that that kind of language is incendiary and unacceptable in the House.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I echo her statements that inflammatory comments should not be made. In fact, no comments should be made when members are putting a question or answering a question, but especially those comments that could incite further unfestive activities that sometimes take place. It is certainly unparliamentary, that is for sure.

The post Point of Order appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[C_rE7hiFgqQ]

As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I made a similar motion on October 1. I believe the rules under Standing Order 52 are clear. This matter is an administrative responsibility of government. It is a specific matter of obvious and acute national importance and concern, and it is urgent. I hope that you do not mind but in the absence of reasons from you, and I understand that it is not traditional for the Speaker to provide reasons, I am inferring that perhaps on October 1, you recognized that there were many opportunities that might present themselves in which this matter might be debated. Under the rules the Speaker must consider the probability of the matter being brought before the House in a reasonable time by other means.

It is clear now that there will be no other opportunity. The 21 sitting days from September 26, when the treaty was first tabled, run out on November 1. We could face a ratification as soon as this Friday.

I did cite some authorities, particularly Professor Peter Hogg, on constitutional laws that even though a treaty of this nature does not require a vote in the House, it is very clear that traditionally a matter of this importance would have come before the House. I cite Peter Hogg:

Despite the absence of any constitutional obligation to obtain parliamentary approval, it has been the practice of Canadian governments to obtain parliamentary approval of the most important treaties in the interval between signing and ratification.

He goes on in that text to describe that governments in the past would place the treaty before both the House and the Senate for consideration and to vote, although there would not be a requirement for royal assent.

The current government has spoken of the fact that, since 2008, it has put in practice the tabling of a treaty for 21 sitting days. However, in the absence of any opportunity to debate or vote on the treaty, this becomes a ritualistic denial of democracy.

Given the great urgency and the fact that this treaty is clearly important, it will bind Canada until at least 2043. It has the potential to disrupt provincial, municipal and federal abilities of future governments to chart a course, to pass laws or to take steps that investors from the People’s Republic of China find to be arbitrary. The possibility of a chilling effect from this is also a threat.

I know that there are those who think this treaty is fantastic and support it fully, but they too would say it is important and if it is important, should it not come before the House? I beg of you, Mr. Speaker, with very little time left, at least allow a treaty of this importance, and in my view a dangerous document, to receive at least four hours of debate in this place tonight.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising this matter to the House again. While I have no doubt it is a very important issue and one with which she has great concerns, I still find that it does not meet the test under the Standing Orders

The post Request for Emergency Debate – Foreign Investment appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, you mentioned at the time that you might give us a ruling. I hate to ask if it is forthcoming, but the S. O. 31 period is becoming increasingly rancorous and the problem is that we are failing to abide by Speaker Sauvé’s guidance. With respect, I wanted to make this submission.

[k_mWw4mI14E]

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the leader of the Green Party has risen when I have been here on this matter. What I find curious is her suggestion that somehow it is inappropriate for members of the House to stand up for the views of their constituents. Certainly, speaking for the Conservative Party, our platform has consistently been one of opposition to new taxes, to carbon taxes and to higher taxes, and I can think of nothing more representative for a member of our party, certainly in my case when I talk to my constituents, than to come to this place and let my views be known on taxes, including the inappropriateness of the NDP proposed carbon tax.

I find it very unusual that a member like her, who is always fighting to have her voice heard, rises repeatedly to try and suppress the voice of others in this House. Both of these seem paradoxical to me, especially when we are talking about members’ statements under Standing Order 31, one which has been the greatest tradition in this House of allowing members the utmost freedom to speak their mind. However, the member of the Green Party seems to want to keep them from speaking their mind when it is not an issue that she disagrees with, the carbon tax, and I find that quite disturbing.

The Speaker: I thank both members for their comments on this.

The post Points of Order – Statements by Members appeared first on Elizabeth May.